I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

President Barack Obama in his second inauguration address called for new action to “respond to the threat of climate change.” Taking advantage of the bully pulpit and a huge national audience, Obama mustered his best possible arguments in a brief case for why addressing global warming is supposedly necessary. Unfortunately for global warming alarmists, Obama’s case was exceptionally flimsy. Then again, Obama did not have much to work with, as the overall case for global warming alarmism is exceptionally flimsy.

Obama presented his argument as follows: “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

Given a fresh canvas on which to work, Obama sought the most compelling examples of an asserted global warming crisis. He chose wildfires, drought and powerful storms. At the same time, he urged us to defer to the “overwhelming judgment of science” on these matters.

President Obama, I agree we should strongly consider the overwhelming judgment of science. Let’s apply the overwhelming judgment of science to your three cherry-picked examples and see what the science reveals.

Leading off the Obama “Big Three” is wildfires. What does the overwhelming judgment of science reveal?

The National Interagency Fire Center reports the number of annual wildfires in the United States has been declining for more than 30 years. In fact, the “overwhelming judgment of science” reveals the number of wildfires rose from the 1950s through the 1970s, as global temperatures declined, and has been declining ever since, as global temperatures have modestly warmed.

The really interesting part about wildfires in the United States is a recent increase in the number of acres burned per wildfire after the federal government reversed a decades-long policy of putting out as many wildfires as quickly as possible. In the 1990s, environmentalists and federal forest officials reported forests had become overgrown as a result of firefighters putting out too many natural fires too quickly. Since then, firefighters are responding to fewer forest fires and letting more acres burn. As a result, even though wildfires occur less frequently as our planet warms and as soil moisture improves (more on that coming right up), our global warming Alarmist in Chief presents the misleading assertion that global warming rather than a change in federal wildfire policy is causing a recent increase in acres burned due to wildfires.

Next in Obama’s “Big Three” of asserted global warming crises is drought. What does the “overwhelming judgment of science” reveal?

U.S. and global soil moisture improved throughout the 20th century as our planet warmed in its recovery from the Little Ice Age. According to the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank, global soil moisture increased throughout the 20th century at almost all sites. Moreover, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that 20th century droughts were quite mild when compared to droughts in previous centuries. This “overwhelming scientific judgment of science” was confirmed in November when a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Naturefound “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

Finally, the President asserts that global warming is causing more powerful storms. This assertion is particularly fictitious. NOAA reports a long-term decline in strong tornadoes striking the United States. The National Hurricane Center reports that the past 40 years have seen the fewest major hurricane strikes since at least the mid-1800s. Even Hurricane Sandy reminds us that the U.S. Northeast has experienced only one major hurricane strike since 1960, but experienced six major hurricane strikes during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, when global temperatures were cooler.

Clearly, the “overwhelming judgment of science” contradicts President Obama and global warming alarmists. This is a good thing.

Now let’s play a game of “pretend.”

Let’s pretend that none of the overwhelming scientific evidence presented above actually existed. Let’s pretend that science supported rather than contradicted President Obama’s assertions. The question is, what would Obama have us do to solve the problem?

Obama’s solution is to impose still more economy-killing carbon dioxide restrictions on the U.S. economy. This makes about as much sense as losing your car keys in Boston but insisting on searching for them in Los Angeles. True, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen more than 33 percent since the year 2000. However, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined during that time and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that during 2012 alone, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined by 8 percent compared to 2011.

China by far emits more carbon dioxide than any other nation and Chinese emissions are growing rapidly. China alone accounts for 75 percent of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions since 2000. If the United States completely eliminated all of its carbon dioxide emissions today (something that is impossible to do), the only thing we would accomplish would be to delay by about five years an equal increase in Chinese emissions. And China has repeatedly and emphatically insisted it will not agree to any restrictions on its carbon dioxide emissions.

Thankfully, President Obama, the “overwhelming judgment of science” shows the asserted global warming crisis exists solely in the minds of global warming alarmists.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that during 2012 alone, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined by 8 percent compared to 2011.

Mr. Taylor,

Your claim is incorrect. The article to which you link reports only on U.S. carbon dioxide emissions for the first three months of the year. Here is the relevant sentence from the article you cite:

“Carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption totaled 1.34 billion metric tons in the first quarter, down nearly 8 percent from a year earlier, the Energy Information Administration said.”

Mr. Taylor, you have either been very careless in ignoring the limited time frame associated with that carbon dioxide emissions report, or you have made the inexcusable mistake of extrapolating from first quarter figures. I suggest you edit your op/ed to correct your error.

Cara, it’s rather pointless. Taylor is speaking to a target audience that is totally unwilling to fact-check. Taylor can also say anything he wants without repercussion. There is no accountability. Forbes certainly won’t yank his chain, and Heartland–the organization for whom he does opinion-management work–certainly won’t. Give Taylor what he deserves: ignore him.

Rather than hand waving, how about providing a solid rebuttal to Taylor’s points. Be specific by naming studies or data that might counter his claims. I am not saying Taylor is right. I have to check it for myself. Rather than making unsupported allegations, please perform some fact checking to enlighten us all.

There you go again, Jay, making the false assertion that somehow this is all about some socialist plot. Step out of the 1950′s and into the 2010′s. This is about applying MARKET SOLUTIONS to serious global problems.

Simply put, the EIA projects that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions will grow over the next few years. Mr. Taylor, if your contrary opinion is based on anything other than wishful thinking, you should indicate what it is.

And how does this updated CO2 emission information have anything to do with Obama’s idiotic proclamation? So I assume you agree with Taylor’s other points?

The EIA short term outlook projection is only for this year and next, if that is your definition of a “few” years in your last sentence. Even with this 2 year projection, the CO2 emissions are lower than in 2005. In fact, per the EIA, the AEO2013 Early Release Overview indicates a CO2 emission projection to the year 2040 which is still 5% below the 2005 value. So almost 30 years from now, our CO2 emissions are estimated to be 5% less than what they were in 2005. So what is the point of your post besides that Taylor did not use the latest data? What does it mean in context of Obama’s proclamation?